What if 55% of the people want to control and limit what the other 45% do and say? It's never as easy as 'government should just do this' because a government needs to have power to fulfill its mandate. Any concentration of power can, and will be abused and there will be cycles of this occurring as the society around it grows more and less apathetic to abuse of power.
Better options include consensus, multi-stakeholder representation (like needing overall approval from many different groups within society for a decision), and score voting (See http://electology.org/ for more on practical voting systems).
I'm going to guess you've never been on a committee and needed something important done but very few people understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_trivialit...
this.. i give you a thousand points
We are not modernizing and improving laws to reflect changing times. Can give plenty of examples for that. Instead we are clinging to what forefathers thought was best at the time. We are in the best time to implement true democracy. Are the red and blue candidates your only choice? Is it so hard to implement a better way to field candidates based on merits/goods that you do for society rather than dirty politics? Too much change too soon will often not be well received. So things needs to be improved one by one. But I don't see that happening. All I see is government desperate to violate on the rights of people.
Hell, if you could build grandiose scale systems to snoop on people, it not that hard to build something that betters the living condition of people. Currently the government doesn't care. Too much energy(time, money, lives) are spent on waging meaningless wars. Now if that much energy were to be focused on advancement of society..
No, it's a problem with the state. The state is not the society.
We are in the best time to implement true democracy.
No, we are not. No one knows what it even is.
Are the red and blue candidates your only choice?
That's a majoritarian consideration. Eliminating that for the U.S. is only one of many issues.
Is it so hard to implement a better way to field candidates based on merits/goods
Yes, it is extraordinarily hard. As a practical matter, any system based on electing representatives makes it impossible to ex ante anticipate the decision making that the representative will actually undertake in office. There is no guarantee that the elected agent will abide by the expectations that they have conveyed to the principal. Further, decision making in a system of collective action has profoundly different semantic considerations and rules from that of a contractual exchange.
(This topic has been well-studied under constitutional economics, voting theory, rational choice and political science. For starting points, see The Logic of Collective Action and The Calculus of Consent followed by Patterns of Democracy. For radical reappraisals, see Organization Theory (Kevin A. Carson) and Democracy: The God That Failed).
You don't even need "hate". You only need 55% of the people to own houses, and the other 45% not to. The 55% will vote in the government that makes it easiest for immigrants to come in and push up those house prices, including rents. Just look at Australia/NZ and Canada wrt immigrants from particularly Asia: 55% of the people will sell citizenships to the detriment of the other 45%. Since 2008, the US has started doing the same, not out of people having "hate" but out of making money from their houses.
You may have many issues, but you need to start fixing something. Better if what you start with is key to fix the rest. Unfortunately it's also the key for the people in power to stay in it, so it's the most difficult issue to fix.
If the candidates were those who have done many good for the society, then there is high probability that any of them will do comparatively well for the society than candidates chosen not based on their merits.
> true democracy -No one knows what it even is
are we even doing any debate on how to improve the situation? that would be a start.
> 55% in control doesn't want the other 45% to have those
those(healthcare and education atleast) are needs of everyone. I don't see why anyone would disagree with making those mandatory and free/accessible for everyone. If that is implemented, coming generations would be well civilized and well behaved as it eliminates many societal problems.
If that is implemented, coming generations would be well civilized and well behaved as it eliminates many societal problems.
Oh boy. Not even wrong.
See: Deschooling Society by Ivan Illich, Compulsory Miseducation by Paul Goodman, anything written by John Taylor Gatto, John Holt and A.S. Neill.
It's also trivially disprovable by mere observation.
By education, I meant some better form of learning. Those books describe an actual problem that needs to be fixed. If the education system would teach people to think critically, analyze and identify the good and bad with something, then that is the ideal education. Once a person can think clear, it will almost always show in his actions.
I had a teacher, who taught us to think about the why's? We really struggled initially. But then it made me curious about many things, which I followed by reading up on it. Reading about many different things, be that stories, news, science, technology, culture gave me a view that is accommodating of other humans and their point of view. I am very fond of that teacher. Without her, I wouldn't be what I am today. I cannot tell the same about any other teacher in my life. Now that was education I received from her.